The day that EQN reaches millions (2-3 million will suffice for me) utilizing a non-consensual PvP mechanic then that will be the date I came back here and agree with you. Till that day, I stand by my assessment and historical reference that a FFA PvP has been and forever be niche within the realm of persistent online RPG's.
Edit: your greatest source of inspiration (Eve) manages a paltry 500,000 player base. Further proof that FFA Non-consensual or Forced FFA PvP will forever be small potatoes in the genre.
500k isn't paltry. I don't know where you got that idea.
We don't know what EQN is going to be. What we do know is that it's not going to be EQ. It's not going to be EQ2. It's not going to be a themepark. That we know. Oh and we know it's going to have PvP and you're not going to be coddled and it won't be linear. That we know.
I could care less what will suffice for you. I'm saying what they are planning on doing. Something different. Something that hasn't been done before. Which is what you're plainly pointing out to others as a negative. My point is that you might be pointing out the motivation why SOE is doing something in the first place. Not saying that's what's going to happen, but I do think there will be more PvP in the PvE game of EQ than most fanboys will be comfortable with.
What matters is what's already been said. I've been basing my opinion and guesses on what Smed has already said. Many people (perhaps yourself) are having a tough time dealing with EQ Next not being EQ3, rather than looking at what we know and going from there.
OK subscription numbers aside. The point remains, FFA PvP is niche, even MJ said he only expects 50k players in CU. My point is until the day a FFA PvP game reaches broad market appeal I will continue to comment on the fallacies of FFA PvP. The day a FFA game rivals a PvE centric game I wil lcoem here and say your right.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
And when someone pointed that statement out to Dave, he replied with "@S_Franchise73@PoeticStanziel hehe. If you think that's an announcement of a feature, then enjoy it. (I don't. "
You think that's an answer to refute what Smed said? Sounds more like someone whom is glossing over a comment that they weren't ready to make.
Or its a vague way of saying "Don't count on it"
Just like Smeds post, it's all in how you want to take it.
No actually. It's not. Go read Smeds reply again. There's no mistaking what he meant or whom he was replying to.
And when someone pointed that statement out to Dave, he replied with "@S_Franchise73@PoeticStanziel hehe. If you think that's an announcement of a feature, then enjoy it. (I don't. "
You think that's an answer to refute what Smed said? Sounds more like someone whom is glossing over a comment that they weren't ready to make.
Or its a vague way of saying "Don't count on it"
Just like Smeds post, it's all in how you want to take it.
No actually. It's not. Go read Smeds reply again. There's no mistaking what he meant or whom he was replying to.
You can read it any way you want. Was he stating specifically that it was a feature that was going to be in game? Was he just agreeing that he shares the same opinion as the poster? Thing is no one really knows what he was 'Wholeheartedly" agreeing to. Therefore, like it or not, it's all in how you read into it.
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Originally posted by lugal Gonna quote Blizzard, there is no griefing on a pvp server. You choose to be pvp'd when you select the server. Quit with the carebear whining.
This type of thinking is one of the reasons you "hardcore" PvPers don't have a game to call your own... I mean sure, you might have Darkfall or Mortal Online but a true AAA game I don't see it happening because you are all being so "hard" that you run off the people you need playing these games.
Reap what you sow I guess, until the "wolves" stop acting like this all I see if game after game of crying about no hardcore PvP.
I love PvP, what I don't love is this kind of attitude. There are demolition derbies, does that mean that because I get in my car I should expect some retard to come crashing into me?
Narrow-minded sh*t like this is what gives PvPers a bad name to being with, let alone that you know it and I know it, there won't be true PvP in any of these games. Why? Because the "hardcore" are not that hard. You ain't hard when it is you and four of your buddies camping a zone line, or jacking the solo guy fighting a bear or using line of sight exploits to get the jump on people. Just another reason PvPers have such a bad rep. But you guys bring it on yourselves so I really can't feel bad.
I CAN feel bad for the tons of people I know are out there that would LOVE to give a game like what you want a try but are chased off by idiot "hardcore wolves" that still use the freaking term carebear...
It is a shame too. Because it takes all kinds of people to do all kinds of things. Why then would you want to run them out of your type of game? Seems to me that bashing keyboards over and over again with the same three guilds would just get so entirely tedious, then again I guess that is what you cats love and honestly, you already have your games for that.
A handful of forum warriors don't make all PvPers. Generalizing is pretty bad too. There's plenty of people that take the opposite protector side in all of this as well.
The problem comes from two different types of gamers. You have those that want challenge and those that want entertainment. Those that want challenge will be for EQ Next. Whether your PvP or PvE.
No one knows what the PvP will be in EQ Next. Smed never said it was FFA. He only acknowledge that sandbox needs Open World PvP with real risk/rewards.
You can read it any way you want. Was he stating specifically that it was a feature that was going to be in game? Was he just agreeing that he shares the same opinion as the poster? Thing is no one really knows what he was 'Wholeheartedly" agreeing to. Therefore, like it or not, it's all in how you read into it.
A sandbox game needs conflict to drive the economy, which means open-world PvP and risk/reward.
And EQ Next is going to be a sandbox game...
his response is:
I agree wholeheartedly.
So your argument is that he agrees that a sandbox game needs Open World PvP and risk/reward, but for some reason he chose not to put it in his sandbox game EQ Next?
Smed is not a dumbass you better believe he is not going to force PVP onto people he wants his game to make money you do not invest millions into a new game and risk your more valuable IP on a niche. You can bet it will be PVP servers and PVE servers. There is a way to do it right the problem is no ones found that balance.
You can read it any way you want. Was he stating specifically that it was a feature that was going to be in game? Was he just agreeing that he shares the same opinion as the poster? Thing is no one really knows what he was 'Wholeheartedly" agreeing to. Therefore, like it or not, it's all in how you read into it.
A sandbox game needs conflict to drive the economy, which means open-world PvP and risk/reward.
And EQ Next is going to be a sandbox game...
his response is:
I agree wholeheartedly.
So your argument is that he agrees that a sandbox game needs Open World PvP and risk/reward, but for some reason he chose not to put it in his sandbox game EQ Next?
Really?
Is it my argument that someone can have an opinion that reflects their personal preference but does not mean its part of the product they are making? Then yes.
He may personally like the idea and opinion expressed in that conversation, but it does not mean that its officially a feature of the game. People due tend to agree with like minded opinions but not always act on them.
I feel that people driving with a cell phone to their ear should be pulled out of the car and beaten in front of other drivers and made an example of. Does that mean I will push to make that a law?
Again, you know as much as the rest of us, and Smeds tweets have really meant nothing as of yet. Hell, some of his tweets are just made to get a rise out of people. I wouldn't take his tweets as gospel until something substantial is revealed.
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Is it my argument that someone can have an opinion that reflects their personal preference but does not mean its part of the product they are making? Then yes.
He may personally like the idea and opinion expressed in that conversation, but it does not mean that its officially a feature of the game. People due tend to agree with like minded opinions but not always act on them.
I feel that people driving with a cell phone to their ear should be pulled out of the car and beaten in front of other drivers and made an example of. Does that mean I will push to make that a law?
You do know that Smed's in charge right? So...yeah
Is it my argument that someone can have an opinion that reflects their personal preference but does not mean its part of the product they are making? Then yes.
He may personally like the idea and opinion expressed in that conversation, but it does not mean that its officially a feature of the game. People due tend to agree with like minded opinions but not always act on them.
I feel that people driving with a cell phone to their ear should be pulled out of the car and beaten in front of other drivers and made an example of. Does that mean I will push to make that a law?
You do know that Smed's in charge right? So...yeah
And he was in charge of overseeing EQ developement too. Not a PvP centric game, and he liked PvP back then as well.
So, um, yeah....
And last I checked, Dave was the head of EQ Next...
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Is it my argument that someone can have an opinion that reflects their personal preference but does not mean its part of the product they are making? Then yes.
He may personally like the idea and opinion expressed in that conversation, but it does not mean that its officially a feature of the game. People due tend to agree with like minded opinions but not always act on them.
I feel that people driving with a cell phone to their ear should be pulled out of the car and beaten in front of other drivers and made an example of. Does that mean I will push to make that a law?
You do know that Smed's in charge right? So...yeah
Actually Dave / Smokejumper is in charge. Smed is his boss, but he isn't running the show with EQNext.
Originally posted by lugal Gonna quote Blizzard, there is no griefing on a pvp server. You choose to be pvp'd when you select the server. Quit with the carebear whining.
Trouble is we aren't talking about having different servers...we are discussing having just PvP only gameplay were you don't have a choice. Need to catch up on some reading here :-p
hehe good stuff I was thinking the same thing while I was reading this post.
"The King and the Pawn return to the same box at the end of the game"
I´m sick of this griefer paranoia. How many more games do you need to ruin with artificial restrictions?
Wanna see EQ Next go down the drain and F2P like any other title?
Do we need an airpot like TSA forcing restrictions and controls on everyone because of 0.1% possible bad people?
This is all part of PVEers agenda, seen it on dozens games. Paranoid and scared of videogame mechanics.
Umm, EQ Next is already going to be free to play....
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Is it my argument that someone can have an opinion that reflects their personal preference but does not mean its part of the product they are making? Then yes.
He may personally like the idea and opinion expressed in that conversation, but it does not mean that its officially a feature of the game. People due tend to agree with like minded opinions but not always act on them.
I feel that people driving with a cell phone to their ear should be pulled out of the car and beaten in front of other drivers and made an example of. Does that mean I will push to make that a law?
You do know that Smed's in charge right? So...yeah
Actually Dave / Smokejumper is in charge. Smed is his boss, but he isn't running the show with EQNext.
Georgeson overseas all of the EQ franchises, he said his job was just to keep everything going smoothly. Terry Michaels is the lead producer of EQN, and Darrin McPherson is lead designer.
Originally posted by William12 Smed is not a dumbass you better believe he is not going to force PVP onto people he wants his game to make money you do not invest millions into a new game and risk your more valuable IP on a niche. You can bet it will be PVP servers and PVE servers. There is a way to do it right the problem is no ones found that balance.
Funny. I heard he made quite a lot of money from PlanetSide 2. Now can we lay this silly argument to rest? Argumentum ad populum is and will always be a fallacy.
Originally posted by William12 Smed is not a dumbass you better believe he is not going to force PVP onto people he wants his game to make money you do not invest millions into a new game and risk your more valuable IP on a niche. You can bet it will be PVP servers and PVE servers. There is a way to do it right the problem is no ones found that balance.
Funny. I heard he made quite a lot of money from PlanetSide 2. Now can we lay this silly argument to rest? Argumentum ad populum is and will always be a fallacy.
Smed is not a dumbass you better believe he is not going to force a truckload of gameplay restrictions in a sandbox onto people, he wants his game to make money you do not invest millions into a new game and risk your more valuable IP on another Wowclone. You can bet it will be one single server sandbox. There is a way to do it right the problem is no one except CCP found that cloning Wow is a dead end.
Actually Dave / Smokejumper is in charge. Smed is his boss, but he isn't running the show with EQNext.
The top dog is ALWAYS running the show.
I can guarantee you the CEO of my company has no fucking clue what I do, or how to do it himself if he did. He has an MBA from Harvard which has fuck-all to do with the product we produce, except for the higher level "answer to the board of directors" company promoting crap he does in his position. Pretty much the same thing Smedley is doing. "Buy our stuff. It's great!"
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
Actually Dave / Smokejumper is in charge. Smed is his boss, but he isn't running the show with EQNext.
The top dog is ALWAYS running the show.
I can guarantee you the CEO of my company has no fucking clue what I do, or how to do it himself if he did. He has an MBA from Harvard which has fuck-all to do with the product we produce, except for the higher level "answer to the board of directors" company promoting crap he does in his position. Pretty much the same thing Smedley is doing. "Buy our stuff. It's great!"
What on earth has this got to do with my original post which basically is saying how unlimited freedom in a game will just lead to abuse or griefing .
I remember Alphaworld , which wasn't an MMORPG but it was an online world where you could build things . There were people who went around putting items all over the place making it look like trash . They were called Vandals .
Even in Minecraft some people would log into an online game and destroy peoples work .
This game is going to be huge so whats to stop people from ruining other peoples fun ?
My only thoughts are that they will sell land within the server ( virtual property zones ) and those people will have the rights to do whatever they want to that property. I guess the size of the land could be massive and the land will probably be sold for real money on a cash shop ? Just a guess
Originally posted by William12 Smed is not a dumbass you better believe he is not going to force PVP onto people he wants his game to make money you do not invest millions into a new game and risk your more valuable IP on a niche. You can bet it will be PVP servers and PVE servers. There is a way to do it right the problem is no ones found that balance.
Funny. I heard he made quite a lot of money from PlanetSide 2. Now can we lay this silly argument to rest? Argumentum ad populum is and will always be a fallacy.
Smed is not a dumbass you better believe he is not going to force a truckload of gameplay restrictions in a sandbox onto people, he wants his game to make money you do not invest millions into a new game and risk your more valuable IP on another Wowclone. You can bet it will be one single server sandbox. There is a way to do it right the problem is no one except CCP found that cloning Wow is a dead end.
(mod edit)
First, you need to get it out of your head that Sandbox = PvP. A sandbox can be completely successful without it. In fact, I can guarantee you a sandbox game WITHOUT PvP will be millions of players ahead of any sandbox with it. Because PvPer's are a minority. A very small minority. Don't think so? Go ahead and look up the status facts that any gaming company posts based off player population and quarterly growth. Whether you want to believe it or not, it's a fact.
Second, everytime you come on here and post something all I see from you is 'carebear this', 'pve'er that'. You have some serious issues. Maybe seek help?
Third, PvPer's are griefers by nature. Whether you choose to believe that or not is irrelevant. They are. Look at every FFA Full Loot PvP game that has ever come out. They are all dead or in a coma. Darkfall, Shadowbane, Earthrise, etc. Except Eve of course. But I believe that's because Eve has an amazing skill system and NOT because of the PvP. That can be proven by the fact that if you go anywhere that's safe, there are a ton of players. If you go to 0 sector...it's a graveyard.
Death penalty or life in prison for griefers? Really. Just delete the toon and start a new one - and continue griefing. Even if you ban or delete their account just create a new account.
There is no way to stop griefing except to not allow it. That is the rub.
Originally posted by William12 Smed is not a dumbass you better believe he is not going to force PVP onto people he wants his game to make money you do not invest millions into a new game and risk your more valuable IP on a niche. You can bet it will be PVP servers and PVE servers. There is a way to do it right the problem is no ones found that balance.
Funny. I heard he made quite a lot of money from PlanetSide 2. Now can we lay this silly argument to rest? Argumentum ad populum is and will always be a fallacy.
Smed is not a dumbass you better believe he is not going to force a truckload of gameplay restrictions in a sandbox onto people, he wants his game to make money you do not invest millions into a new game and risk your more valuable IP on another Wowclone. You can bet it will be one single server sandbox. There is a way to do it right the problem is no one except CCP found that cloning Wow is a dead end.
yadda yadda
You can keep your insults for yourself. You don´t have arguments. I didn´t even read past the first sentence. Move along.
Depending on what kind of constrains and what kinds of checks and balances are put into place so that the game world doesn't deteriorate into complete self-destruction with nothing left.
I am a strong believer of giving players a ton of freedom, but at the same time putting in major consequences for criminal acts such as murder of innocents or burning down a forest.
Such acts should flag the offender for "life in prison" type of sentence, where they are screwed forever (might as well delete the character) - just like in RL.
Major crimes should have MAJOR consequences - not slap on the wrist like AoW and ArcheAge where murderers spend several hours in jail, that does not go far enough.
Now warfare - or major conflict would not have these penalties -but ganking and griefing - death penalty or life in prison - must have extreme consequence.
Build a systems that discourages asshattery in an extreme way - that's the way to go.
If I'm going to lose my whole character for killing another player and looting him, I better get something like everything he spent IRL money on for his character.. There is no way anyone would ever do anything (thus making it not as exciting) if the repurcussion was "Your character you spent hundreds of hours on is pretty much in virtual prison for life"
Losing your loot in a crafting based PvE endgame item progression (Which is looking likely, but we have no idea what the Raids will offer. They claim PvE/Raids arent just nothing) isnt the end of the world if someone kills you, but if one particular person is on a murdering spree then there should be a cool bounty system to go on him, yeah. Even in Skyrim -- You can commit a crime if you remove all the evidence to avoid getting a "Warrant" If I kill one person out in a forest just me and him, the whole game shouldnt turn on me.
(i'm not a griefer, but to put my mind in someone who likes the idea of World PvP while also doing my PvE stuff in an Everquest setting)
Originally posted by William12 Smed is not a dumbass you better believe he is not going to force PVP onto people he wants his game to make money you do not invest millions into a new game and risk your more valuable IP on a niche. You can bet it will be PVP servers and PVE servers. There is a way to do it right the problem is no ones found that balance.
Funny. I heard he made quite a lot of money from PlanetSide 2. Now can we lay this silly argument to rest? Argumentum ad populum is and will always be a fallacy.
Planetside 2 isn't a MMORPG with PVP as an available playstyle. It's a MMOShooter that is 100% geared toward and focussed upon PVP. There is no PVE at all. There are no quests, no dungeons, no NPCs, no crafting, nothing that would make it in any way, shape, or form an MMORPG.
That would be an association fallacy.
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
Comments
OK subscription numbers aside. The point remains, FFA PvP is niche, even MJ said he only expects 50k players in CU. My point is until the day a FFA PvP game reaches broad market appeal I will continue to comment on the fallacies of FFA PvP. The day a FFA game rivals a PvE centric game I wil lcoem here and say your right.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
No actually. It's not. Go read Smeds reply again. There's no mistaking what he meant or whom he was replying to.
Really? What's the other side he's been playing? Would love to see some of that info.
He's been VERY consistent with the little he's said so far over the last year.
You can read it any way you want. Was he stating specifically that it was a feature that was going to be in game? Was he just agreeing that he shares the same opinion as the poster? Thing is no one really knows what he was 'Wholeheartedly" agreeing to. Therefore, like it or not, it's all in how you read into it.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
A handful of forum warriors don't make all PvPers. Generalizing is pretty bad too. There's plenty of people that take the opposite protector side in all of this as well.
The problem comes from two different types of gamers. You have those that want challenge and those that want entertainment. Those that want challenge will be for EQ Next. Whether your PvP or PvE.
No one knows what the PvP will be in EQ Next. Smed never said it was FFA. He only acknowledge that sandbox needs Open World PvP with real risk/rewards.
That's it.
Really? So he's replying to @poeticstanziel saying
A sandbox game needs conflict to drive the economy, which means open-world PvP and risk/reward.
And EQ Next is going to be a sandbox game...
his response is:
I agree wholeheartedly.
So your argument is that he agrees that a sandbox game needs Open World PvP and risk/reward, but for some reason he chose not to put it in his sandbox game EQ Next?
Really?
Is it my argument that someone can have an opinion that reflects their personal preference but does not mean its part of the product they are making? Then yes.
He may personally like the idea and opinion expressed in that conversation, but it does not mean that its officially a feature of the game. People due tend to agree with like minded opinions but not always act on them.
I feel that people driving with a cell phone to their ear should be pulled out of the car and beaten in front of other drivers and made an example of. Does that mean I will push to make that a law?
Again, you know as much as the rest of us, and Smeds tweets have really meant nothing as of yet. Hell, some of his tweets are just made to get a rise out of people. I wouldn't take his tweets as gospel until something substantial is revealed.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
You do know that Smed's in charge right? So...yeah
And he was in charge of overseeing EQ developement too. Not a PvP centric game, and he liked PvP back then as well.
So, um, yeah....
And last I checked, Dave was the head of EQ Next...
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Actually Dave / Smokejumper is in charge. Smed is his boss, but he isn't running the show with EQNext.
hehe good stuff I was thinking the same thing while I was reading this post.
I´m sick of this griefer paranoia. How many more games do you need to ruin with artificial restrictions?
Wanna see EQ Next go down the drain and F2P like any other title?
Do we need an airport-like TSA "forcing" restrictions and controls on everyone because of 0.1% possible bad people?
This is all part of PVEers agenda, seen it on dozens games. Paranoid and scared of videogame mechanics.
Umm, EQ Next is already going to be free to play....
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Georgeson overseas all of the EQ franchises, he said his job was just to keep everything going smoothly. Terry Michaels is the lead producer of EQN, and Darrin McPherson is lead designer.
The top dog is ALWAYS running the show.
Funny. I heard he made quite a lot of money from PlanetSide 2. Now can we lay this silly argument to rest? Argumentum ad populum is and will always be a fallacy.
Smed is not a dumbass you better believe he is not going to force a truckload of gameplay restrictions in a sandbox onto people, he wants his game to make money you do not invest millions into a new game and risk your more valuable IP on another Wowclone. You can bet it will be one single server sandbox. There is a way to do it right the problem is no one except CCP found that cloning Wow is a dead end.
I can guarantee you the CEO of my company has no fucking clue what I do, or how to do it himself if he did. He has an MBA from Harvard which has fuck-all to do with the product we produce, except for the higher level "answer to the board of directors" company promoting crap he does in his position. Pretty much the same thing Smedley is doing. "Buy our stuff. It's great!"
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
What on earth has this got to do with my original post which basically is saying how unlimited freedom in a game will just lead to abuse or griefing .
I remember Alphaworld , which wasn't an MMORPG but it was an online world where you could build things . There were people who went around putting items all over the place making it look like trash . They were called Vandals .
Even in Minecraft some people would log into an online game and destroy peoples work .
This game is going to be huge so whats to stop people from ruining other peoples fun ?
My only thoughts are that they will sell land within the server ( virtual property zones ) and those people will have the rights to do whatever they want to that property. I guess the size of the land could be massive and the land will probably be sold for real money on a cash shop ? Just a guess
(mod edit)
First, you need to get it out of your head that Sandbox = PvP. A sandbox can be completely successful without it. In fact, I can guarantee you a sandbox game WITHOUT PvP will be millions of players ahead of any sandbox with it. Because PvPer's are a minority. A very small minority. Don't think so? Go ahead and look up the status facts that any gaming company posts based off player population and quarterly growth. Whether you want to believe it or not, it's a fact.
Second, everytime you come on here and post something all I see from you is 'carebear this', 'pve'er that'. You have some serious issues. Maybe seek help?
Third, PvPer's are griefers by nature. Whether you choose to believe that or not is irrelevant. They are. Look at every FFA Full Loot PvP game that has ever come out. They are all dead or in a coma. Darkfall, Shadowbane, Earthrise, etc. Except Eve of course. But I believe that's because Eve has an amazing skill system and NOT because of the PvP. That can be proven by the fact that if you go anywhere that's safe, there are a ton of players. If you go to 0 sector...it's a graveyard.
Death penalty or life in prison for griefers? Really. Just delete the toon and start a new one - and continue griefing. Even if you ban or delete their account just create a new account.
There is no way to stop griefing except to not allow it. That is the rub.
You can keep your insults for yourself. You don´t have arguments. I didn´t even read past the first sentence. Move along.
If I'm going to lose my whole character for killing another player and looting him, I better get something like everything he spent IRL money on for his character.. There is no way anyone would ever do anything (thus making it not as exciting) if the repurcussion was "Your character you spent hundreds of hours on is pretty much in virtual prison for life"
Losing your loot in a crafting based PvE endgame item progression (Which is looking likely, but we have no idea what the Raids will offer. They claim PvE/Raids arent just nothing) isnt the end of the world if someone kills you, but if one particular person is on a murdering spree then there should be a cool bounty system to go on him, yeah. Even in Skyrim -- You can commit a crime if you remove all the evidence to avoid getting a "Warrant" If I kill one person out in a forest just me and him, the whole game shouldnt turn on me.
(i'm not a griefer, but to put my mind in someone who likes the idea of World PvP while also doing my PvE stuff in an Everquest setting)
Planetside 2 isn't a MMORPG with PVP as an available playstyle. It's a MMOShooter that is 100% geared toward and focussed upon PVP. There is no PVE at all. There are no quests, no dungeons, no NPCs, no crafting, nothing that would make it in any way, shape, or form an MMORPG.
That would be an association fallacy.
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous